The power thus conferred is unlimited, with the exception stated. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency or after conviction and judgment. This power of the President is not subject to legislative control. Congress can neither limit the effect of his pardon nor exclude from its exercise any class of offenders. The benign prerogative of mercy reposed in him cannot be fettered by any legislative restrictions.

(The mentioned limitation was in cased of impeachment). So no you don't even need an indictment to receive a pardon. I personally like Obama but damn he must be the absolute worst constitutional lawyer ever.

People have a right to their property, But if you intend to exclude others from it, then you need suitable notice, otherwise, people walking around are just exercising their natural-born right to explore the streets and unimproved areas, and simply pass through.

You are correct. Again, some kids get excited, look at the phone, and play it right away instead of "moving away to a safe zone" to initiate the capturing.

There's no need to go onto private property to capture a pokemon on the private property. Once you know the pokemon is there you can capture it. There's no moving away to safe zone. You tap on the pokemon thats in private property from the public sidewalk.

Yeah I'm not getting these warnings. Until the pokemon comes out of hiding you can't tell where they are so trespassing to find them makes no sense. Then once they're out of hiding you tap to bring up the capture screen. There's no need to get closer to capture em. So why would trespassing even come up?

You are correct: what he confirmed was that Clinton lied under oath to Congress, not to the FBI.

Once again totally irrelevant to the discussionI asserted:

Clinton probably didn't lie to the FBI,

And you tried to argue that I was wrong. You seem to think "Clinton lied" + "Clinton spoke to the FBI" == "Clinton lied to the FBI" and you keep your nonsensical arguments going. on that premise. But the fact is according to a direct quote from a discussion you yourself cited. Clinton DID NOT lie to the FBI.

She couldn't have lied under oath to the FBI because she wasn't put under oath

You don't get put under oath to talk to the FBI, but you can still be arrested and charged for lying to the FBI, being under oath doesn't make a difference

Comey will now be tasked with a formal investigation of her lying to Congress. If we're lucky, they'll still get her.

And it doesn't matter one bit because if she gets elected she can simply pardon herself. The people voting for her will simply believe it was a republican conspiracy and she did nothing wrong so they will vote for her anyway. Since there is no prohibition on felons running for presidency this is all a moo point. Even in the unlikely case that she ends up with a felony conviction (and remember, the republicans are now just trying to get her security clearance terminated and not a conviction) she will simply pardon herself if she gets elected and since the president is exempt from security clearance requirements any action that the house takes against her will be negated should she get elected. All they can do is make it so that if she does get elected then Trump can't add her to his cabinet... You know without pardoning her himself, which if he were to add her to his cabinet he would just do that anyway. Congress is impotent in this matter and just throwing a hissy fit because they don't have anything else they think matters.

What legal basis to shoot him? Because the guy was struggling against an arrest?

The police had exhausted non lethal techniques including verbal orders, a taser, PPCT and open handed control tactics against a man they knew to be armed with a gun, he then proceeded to overpower and lift both officers and there is some pretty clear evidence he was reaching for his gun at the time he was shot. What do you think the officers should have let him do? Remove the gun from his pocket and hope he just intends to hand it to them?

Too many people think that their local neighborhood is what everyone else must also live in and haven't seen anything that could be described as a bad neighborhood, let alone mildly troubling

Funny you say that. I looked Mr Sterling up on the sex offender registration site and his last known address (keep in mind he was wanted for failure to register so it's probably out of date) is a known bad neighborhood, a little boy was murdered there not long ago, it may be over a year by now but the memorial is still out, I drive through his neighborhood every day on my way to work.

When he posted up and managed to lift both officers, yes they rightfully felt fearful for their life. And watch the video closely. Right before they start shouting "He's got a gun" the officer on his chest's eyes went wide and his mouth dropped. And after the shooting they knew exactly which pocket the gun was in, they didn't need to frisk him. He clearly revealed the location of the gun at some point during their interaction AND somehow scared a man who had been on the force 5 years (or is it 4?)